Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

- In other words, "Yes. If I had stuff in the authentic pan, showing weakness in the carbon dating would be meaningful."
- A while back, I was told by your colleagues that the carbon dating amounted to a smoking gun, trumped any other evidence and that I needed to disprove its results before bothering with anything else.
- I claimed that I didn't need to disprove the results; I just needed to cast some doubt upon it. That's what I'm currently trying to do.

If it's wrong then we just don't have a carbon date. That's all. If the carbon dating never happened you'd still have no evidence the Shroud covered the body of the person you want it to have.

Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...

Posts: 17,348

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Right. That's the idea. One step at a time. Tedious, but logical.

My Dear Mr. Savage:

It is dishonest of you to continue to pretend, as you do, that hypothetical expressions ("even IF it were possible for you to demonstrate a weakness...") represent actual situations ("...since you agree that the 14C dating is infirm, there has to be '...some patching'").

When do you intend to demonstrate that the CIQ must be ~2000 years old?

I remain,

Accurately yours, &ct.

__________________"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...

Posts: 17,348

Originally Posted by Jabba

- In other words, "Yes. If I had stuff in the authentic pan, showing weakness in the carbon dating would be meaningful."
- A while back, I was told by your colleagues that the carbon dating amounted to a smoking gun, trumped any other evidence and that I needed to disprove its results before bothering with anything else.
- I claimed that I didn't need to disprove the results; I just needed to cast some doubt upon it. That's what I'm currently trying to do.

My Dear Mr. Savage:

You should not make so free to paraphrase the words of others; especially when your "paraphrase" goes against the meaning of the original words. That is, simply, dishonest.

It has been pointed out to you, multiple times, that the 14C date is only one of a multitude of indications that the CIQ is manifestly medieval. To say nothing of the fact that, even were you to prove that the 14C date (provided by the mostly scrutinized bit of carbon dating ever) was, in fact, demonstrable an Illuminati plot, you would sill have the anatomical absurdity, the postural impossibility, the scriptural disagreement, the historical inaccuracy, and the anti-gravity "hair" and "blood" of the representational byzantine-styled image on the sized and gessoed surface of a manifestly medieval bit of linen.

When do you intend to begin producing any evidence that the CIQ is ~2000 years old?

I remain,

disappointedly yours, &ct.

__________________"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

- In other words, "Yes. If I had stuff in the authentic pan, showing weakness in the carbon dating would be meaningful."
- A while back, I was told by your colleagues that the carbon dating amounted to a smoking gun, trumped any other evidence and that I needed to disprove its results before bothering with anything else.
- I claimed that I didn't need to disprove the results; I just needed to cast some doubt upon it. That's what I'm currently trying to do.

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

It doesn't matter how much you "take out" of the forgery pan, if there is nothing in the authentic pan, it doesn't matter, you can never tip the scales in its favor.

pgwenthold,
- I claim that making a disagreement in a debate as specific as possible is especially useful, and that hypothetical questions do just that. Do you disagree?

__________________"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor

I claim that making a disagreement in a debate as specific as possible is especially useful

You can claim that, but your argument style explicitly tends toward the opposite. You take my carefully and clearly worded posts and manipulate them as best you can to try to make them say something else. Equivocation, the mainstay of your argument, is the enemy of specificity.

Quote:

...and that hypothetical questions do just that. Do you disagree?

I can't possibly disagree more. Between your highly dishonest and errant "map" maintained elsewhere and your ham-fisted attempts to cram "hypotheticals" into your critics' mouths, you're simply trying to pretend there is some other debate happening other than what is unfolding before your eyes.

When may we expect you to deal with the actual arguments on the table, not the ones you fervently wish had been made instead?

- You post assertions made by shroudies without examining the evidence and argument behind them.
- You do not engage with considered and detailed criticism of these. That's just plain rude.
- You go off on these waffling and pointless tangents about what kind of framework would support authnticity. Only to come back and throw out the same debunked claims.
- As far as any actual debate going on, this is easily the limpest defence of an idea I have ever seen on these forums. We have zero vigorous back and forth. This is not a debate because you will not engage with any counter argument.

__________________'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman

Jabba working on a reply as I type. Standby for evidence overload, naysayers!

__________________"You may not know anything about the issue but I bet you reckon something.
So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uninformed, ad hoc reckon..."
David Mitchell

__________________"You may not know anything about the issue but I bet you reckon something.
So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uninformed, ad hoc reckon..."
David Mitchell

You go off on these waffling and pointless tangents about what kind of framework would support authnticity. Only to come back and throw out the same debunked claims.

Spend enough time reading fringe arguments and you discover this is all it ever is. There's rarely a debate over the strength of the actual evidence. Fringe argumentation is all about different patterns of trying to stack the deck to make what little (if any) evidence they have seem important or probative. The patterns very from genre to genre, but they all take some form of setting up ad hoc ground rules that favor their claims.

Quote:

This is not a debate because you will not engage with any counter argument.

We should point out that endless requests for clarification and endless attempts to elicit some token conciliation from the opponent du jour does not count as engagement.

- According to Jay, observation "trumps" inference.
- I would point out that this word doesn't really apply -- and confuses the issue -- when we're considering "preponderance of evidence."
- Do I need to explain?

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle

My Dear Mr. Savage:
You do not need to "explain" your hope that you can avoid facing reality by pretending that this is a "trial", and that the proper standard is "preponderance of the evidence" (neither of which, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly) is correct.

Originally Posted by Jabba

Slowvehicle,
- If I understand what you're saying, my answer is that "preponderance of evidence" is not limited to a "trial" situation. It's like the basic concept in probability, and applies to any question of likelihood -- such as, "How likely is it that the shroud is authentic?"
- The word "trump" normally refers to a bi-variate situation, where "degree" is not taken into account. That is not the case when we're considering the probability of an event -- which is what we're considering here.

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle

...
Reality is not decided by "preponderance of evidence"...

Originally Posted by Jabba

- Reality isn't, but probability is.

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle

My Dear Mr. Savage:
You will be providing support for this statement?
...that would be refreshing.
I remain,
Hopefully yours, &ct.

Originally Posted by Jabba

Slowvehicle,
- Again, I suspect that I'm not understanding your question. It seems obvious to me that the probability of something being true is determined by compiling the relevant information (evidence) available -- i.e., by determining the preponderance of available evidence. Do you find that statement meaningless, or doubtful?

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle

My Dear Mr. Savage:
I see.
Brief derail:

You choose not to support your statement, but simply reiterate it, as if the problem were a deficiency in my understanding, instead of a deficiency in your unsupportable assertion.
I had actually hoped you might provide a citation or something to buttress your position.
Follow:
I do not find your statement "meaningless"; I find it incorrect.
I do not find your statement "doubtful"; I find it incorrect.
What, in your mind, is the "probability" of something that is impossible?

...

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

So what is the evidence that the shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus? In order to have a preponderance of evidence in the balance, you actually have to have something in the pan. All you ever talk about is taking evidence out of the other side, but without anything on the authentic side, it is meaningless.
For example, in what respect does the Raes claims provide evidence to put in the authentic pan? Hint: it doesn't . Even if it were patched in 1500, that does not mean it was the burial shroud of Jesus. See how that works?

Originally Posted by Jabba

Pgwenthold,
- Do you accept that if I had stuff in the authentic pan, showing weakness in the carbon dating would be meaningful?

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Do you accept that if I had wings, I could fly.
If there were evidence for authenticity, we could compare that to the evidence for a forgery...

Originally Posted by Jabba

- In other words, "Yes. If I had stuff in the authentic pan, showing weakness in the carbon dating would be meaningful."
- A while back, I was told by your colleagues that the carbon dating amounted to a smoking gun, trumped any other evidence and that I needed to disprove its results before bothering with anything else.
- I claimed that I didn't need to disprove the results; I just needed to cast some doubt upon it. That's what I'm currently trying to do.

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

It doesn't matter how much you "take out" of the forgery pan, if there is nothing in the authentic pan, it doesn't matter, you can never tip the scales in its favor...

Originally Posted by Jabba

pgwenthold,
- I claim that making a disagreement in a debate as specific as possible is especially useful, and that hypothetical questions do just that. Do you disagree?

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Baseless hypotheticals do nothing to advance debate. Unless you actually have some evidence for authenticity, it does not matter what hypotheticals you create.

pgwenthold,

- That seems to imply that it does matter if I actually have some evidence of authenticity. Is that correct?

- And here, I'm just trying to follow the directions encouraged by your colleagues -- so before I go back to what I think is evidence of authenticity, I need to show that the carbon dating is not a slam dunk.

__________________"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor

That seems to imply that it does matter if I actually have some evidence of authenticity. Is that correct?

For the third time, quit trying to have a fantasy debate in your mind. Quit trying to put words in your critics' mouths. Quit trying to elicit from them token acquiescence to spin as support. We're onto those tactics, in case it's not obvious.

The notion of preponderance requires you to have evidence to weigh. You have none. Therefore you cannot make an argument based on preponderance. Period, full stop, end of discussion. Is that clear enough for you?

Quote:

And here, I'm just trying to follow the directions encouraged by your colleagues...

No. You have been told exactly in what way you equivocated and misrepresented your critics instructions to make them sound like a validation of what you were already doing. How many times must you be corrected before it takes hold?

Quote:

...so before I go back to what I think is evidence of authenticity, I need to show that the carbon dating is not a slam dunk.

No, that was not what you were instructed to do. Now try again, and get it right this time. If you plan to argue a preponderance of evidence in your favor, you must have actual evidence. No amount of un-"slam-dunking" creates a preponderance in your favor. None, even a full-fledged refutation of the carbon dating evidence. This has been explained to you several times, so your ignorance of it cannot possibly be accidental. Stop the deliberate stalling and question-begging and do what you were told.

- That seems to imply that it does matter if I actually have some evidence of authenticity. Is that correct?

- And here, I'm just trying to follow the directions encouraged by your colleagues -- so before I go back to what I think is evidence of authenticity, I need to show that the carbon dating is not a slam dunk.

You have never and likely never will impugn the 14C dating of the CIQ.

You don't even understand it. You cite people who don't understand it, and whose opinions you apparently don't even bother reading.

- That seems to imply that it does matter if I actually have some evidence of authenticity. Is that correct?

- And here, I'm just trying to follow the directions encouraged by your colleagues -- so before I go back to what I think is evidence of authenticity, I need to show that the carbon dating is not a slam dunk.

Jabba, for you to gain even the slightest traction in this "debate" you need to show some positive evidence for a 1st century origin for the shroud. Without that your entire argument is moot.

I've asked you this before, but I'll try again - if there were no evidence for a 13th century date, how would you convince me that the shroud originated in the 1st century? What evidence could you produce that actually points towards a 1st century date? Forget the 14C dating, forget the D'Arcis memo, forget that the cloth is sized and gessoed, forget it all.

I'm standing in front of the Shroud of Turin, I know absolutely nothing about it, you tell me that it was the burial shroud of Jesus, and I ask, "How do you know?"

This has of course all been said before. Ignored by Jabba each time but explained in a myriad of ways by many posters, many times. If this was a debate he might be vigorously questioning this position or arguing against it. To keep trying it on is dishonest.

__________________'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman

- That seems to imply that it does matter if I actually have some evidence of authenticity. Is that correct?

- And here, I'm just trying to follow the directions encouraged by your colleagues -- so before I go back to what I think is evidence of authenticity, I need to show that the carbon dating is not a slam dunk.

Gosh. Where to begin? So much evidence for authenticity, so little time.

__________________"You may not know anything about the issue but I bet you reckon something.
So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uninformed, ad hoc reckon..."
David Mitchell

- That seems to imply that it does matter if I actually have some evidence of authenticity. Is that correct?

- And here, I'm just trying to follow the directions encouraged by your colleagues -- so before I go back to what I think is evidence of authenticity, I need to show that the carbon dating is not a slam dunk.

How about you stop wasting everyone's time with your nonsensical attempts at evasion and present the evidence you've been claiming you have? Or alternatively accept the reality that the shroud is a medieval fake.

__________________As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.

How about you stop wasting everyone's time with your nonsensical attempts at evasion and present the evidence you've been claiming you have? Or alternatively accept the reality that the shroud is a medieval fake.

Apparently someone told him that he's not allowed to do this until he's managed to cast sufficient doubt on the "slam dunk" carbon dating evidence. He'd make substantial progress on this if only people would engage in effective debateTM and follow each tiny thread's attempt to pick a hole in the carbon dating evidence to the very end without stopping it in its tracks with facts

Apparently someone told him that he's not allowed to do this until he's managed to cast sufficient doubt on the "slam dunk" carbon dating evidence. He'd make substantial progress on this if only people would engage in effective debateTM and follow each tiny thread's attempt to pick a hole in the carbon dating evidence to the very end without stopping it in its tracks with facts

- That seems to imply that it does matter if I actually have some evidence of authenticity. Is that correct?

- And here, I'm just trying to follow the directions encouraged by your colleagues -- so before I go back to what I think is evidence of authenticity, I need to show that the carbon dating is not a slam dunk.

No, any attempt to discredit conflicting evidence should be done after you have presented your own positive evidence. Otherwise you are no closer to a first century date.

It has been asked many times, but please (for the sake of this discussion) present your evidence toward a first century date of the shroud. It is no good saying the shroud isn't 700 years old if you never say why it is ~2000 years old.

__________________"You may not know anything about the issue but I bet you reckon something.
So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uninformed, ad hoc reckon..."
David Mitchell

pgwenthold,
- I claim that making a disagreement in a debate as specific as possible is especially useful, and that hypothetical questions do just that. Do you disagree?

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Baseless hypotheticals do nothing to advance debate.
Unless you actually have some evidence for authenticity, it does not matter what hypotheticals you create.

- I should have posed one claim at a time (and phrased the one slightly differently). Do you accept that in a debate it is very useful to make the specific disagreements as explicit as possible?

__________________"The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts while the stupid ones are full of confidence." Charles Bukowski
"Most good ideas don't work." Jabba
"Se due argomenti sembrano altrettanto convincenti, il meno sarcastico è probabilmente corretto." Jabba's Razor

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.